SwiftVets.com

[directorblue]

Questions based upon the latest SBVT ad:

1) Was Kerry's trip to Paris to meet with the N. Vietnames a violation of the UCMJ?

2) If so, what is the statute of limitations and/or penalty related to this?

Thanks for any info.
_________________
http://directorblue.blogspot.com - click for various missives on the folly of John Kerry's candidacy.

[SooZQ]

That's my question as well. I just watched the whole issue of
Kerry's trip to Paris "spun" as "okay" on Brit Hume a few minutes
ago. If he was breaking military code, it should be emphasized
vigorously, or the point of the new ad will be blown.
_________________

Really support the troops, send them a letter and care package! Visit:http://www.anysoldier.com

[MACVJOE]

Do not think as inactive memeber of US Navy Reserves the UMCJ would apply. Yes the Kerry folks will try to spin this as a 'Fact Finding Trip'. But go back to his 1971 testimony, when he mentions trip and meeting Reps, He says yes his actions were 'borderline'. You would think buy what some are spinning that it was normarl for folks to travel to Paris and just go by and visit and talk to Vietcong and NVA. If this was the case why were members in Senate that day so shocked to here of his 'borderline' trip.
_________________
Retired 86 Army
MACV Upper Delta 68-69

[cipher]

directorblue

Yes, there are violations of not only the UCMJ, but the US Code.

You can see a draft of a legal complaint here:

http://www.southernpartysw.org/id93.html

The articles, titles, and codes are spelled out fairly well, with pull quotes.

As far as I know, there is NO statuate of limitations for treason.
_________________
USMC 69-72, 7th Comm, 3rd MarDiv, FMFPAC
US Army 75-79, 97th Sig, SHAPE, NATO
Arkansas National Guard 79
Defense contractor for US Navy, SSPO, SP-20, SP-24, OP-12 84-92

[Boundless]

> Do not think as inactive member of US Navy Reserves the UMCJ would apply.

There are several lawyers who disagree, such as the Holzers:
John Kerry, Criminal
(and yes, this has been linked here before).

Beldar also has some comments on his page at:
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/politics/
Search for "Holzer"

As a legal matter, even if the known Carter Pardons
don't apply, nothing is going to happen.

The important thing is to inform the jury assembling
for 02 Nov 2004.

[jwbarden]

Kerry was a false churl in conniving with the enemy in 1970 and 1971, but he was not subject to the UCMJ at the time. THIS IS A SETTLED MATTER OF LAW AND NOT SUBJECT TO DEBATE. ONE MUST BE ON ACTIVE DUTY IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO BE SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ. RESERVISTS ARE CIVILIANS UNTIL ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY.

[Beatrice1000]

[HardCorps]

1.) This is the law that John Kerry violated which carries a penalty of up to 3 years in prison. It applies to ALL US CITIZENS, so his status as a reserve officer in the Innactive component of the Naval Reserve does not stinkin matter. When you try to tie the two together, he gets and easy out and you confuse people.

U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953

[Hondo]

HardCorps:


Interesting (18 USC 953). Got any ideas where one could find info regarding statute of limitations info? I suspect it's passed, but if it hasn't . . . .

Regarding treason: wouldn't hold my breath there, for four reasons:

a. The US Constitution requires either two witnesses to same overt act or admission in open court to prove treason. Meeting the first condition might be problematic after 33 years (and many living witnesses might be NViet and unwilling to come testify against their friend); taped statements likely won't work (chain of custody issues, possible tampering/editing, etc . . . ). Admission in open court just ain't gonna happen. Not sure meeting with foreign reps would qualify as giving aid and comfort to the enemy anyway, unless he offered outright to work for them.

b. Vietnam was never a declared war. This may be a legal requirement for treason. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. Not sure we've ever had any non-wartime treason cases, so I'm also not sure if this is an issue that's even come up before.

c. First amendment guarantees of free speech may protect Kerry's anti-war statements.

d. POLITICS (no one wants to re-open the pro/anti Vietnam War issue).
_________________
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse."
-- John Stuart Mill

[HardCorps]

Hondo, I can not find a statute of limitations for U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953 (I'm still looking), however I do think this is the most clear of Kerry's violations, I wish I knew how to bring official charges against Kerry and those other VVAW members who violated our laws.

As far a treason, I am not holding my breath simply because of the politics (no Honor there) but I do think it important the inform the American people that Kerry, if he did not commit provable treason that he came very close, and therefore is not a man we should consider to lead our Nation at war (maybe he can be President of the VVAW now).

Your points are valid and realistic but consider this:

a.) Constitution requires 2 witnesses - there were several people with Mde Bihn who could verify what Kerry did. Even some of the VVAW leadership like Hubbard or Urgo are still warped that they might admit their treasonous act out of pride or ignorance in the "cause". It doesn’t hurt to subpoena.

b.) Like Vietnam, the Cold War was never a declared War, yet the US tried and fried the Rosenberg’s for treason. Charging Kerry would not be a precedent.

c. ) 1st Amendment rights do not apply to Kerry’s lies and slander-
Once again there is precedent- Tokyo Rose (Iva Toguri D'Aquino from Chicago) and Axis Sally (Mildred Elizabeth Sisk from Maine) both American citizens were tried and CONVICTED of treason for this. It is important to define aid and comfort in this modern age as not only giving just a few Kentucky rifles and some grain.

It has been well established as precedent in the WWII treason conviction of Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally that Aid and Comfort can be as simple as words and moral support, especially if they result in American suffering or contribute to defeats.
Both these Traitors were American citizens like Kerry whose freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment did not save them.

As someone who believes in truthful disclosure, I think the American people have a duty to be cognizant of these issues at a minimum.
_________________
__________________________
-USMC - Always Faithful
-Platoon Cmdr - Somalia
-ANGLICO FAC - Iraqi Freedom

[Hondo]

HardCorps:

Uhm, no. The Rosenburgs were never tried for treason. They were tried (and fried) for espionage. Big distinction legally.

Regarding Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally: their crimes occurred during a DECLARED war. That fact is very significant. Absent a declaration of war it is legally unclear whether or not an "enemy" exists for purposes of treason. Moral/financial/material support and advocating the "enemy" point of view is quite clearly proscribed during a declared war. The issue during a non-declared war - such as Korea, Lebanon (both times), Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (both times), and Afghanistan - is much less clear. In such cases, US courts have very consistently held that US citizens not serving on active duty with the military may publicly criticize official policy. Other statutes have been used to prosecute misconduct during these undeclared wars. I do not know of ANY prosecutions for treason related to any of these undeclared conflicts. I am reasonably certain there were none.

Indeed, if your position was correct, EVERY peaceful anti-war protestor against any of the above undeclared conflicts could have be prosecuted for treason. I'm pretty sure that happened in exactly ZERO cases. You may feel prosecution for treason appropriate under such circumstances; the courts clearly do not.

It's my understanding that exactly this was a major consideration why John Walker Lindh was NOT prosecuted for treason, but for lesser crimes (conspiring to kill US nationals, giving material support and resources to terrorist organizations, engaging in prohibited transactions). If Lindh - whose conduct appears to meet the Constitutional definition of treason (he actually took up arms against the US; his conduct was witnessed by more than 2 persons) - couldn't be prosecuted for treason, IMO it's also impossible to prosecute Kerry for treason.

However, if 18 USC 953 in fact doesn't have a statue of limitaitons, that could well be another story entirely. I'd be surprised, since very few crimes don't have a statute of limitations - but it's possible.
_________________
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse."
-- John Stuart Mill

[dusty]

[ocsparky101]

You need to go to the www.toledoblade.com. Read the article about the tiger group and you will see why John Kerry wass never charged with and of the violations he was guilty of. I do think though this is why John Kerry's DD-214 shows he was discharged in 1978 some 5 years after he should have been discharged.

Demand that John Kerry sign and release all his military records and FBI files.

[Beatrice1000]

Just now on a radio show (630 KHOW), O'Neill said Kerry was in violation of the UCMJ.

[dusty]

ocsparky101, I can't get that link to come up. Got another?

Never mind, I got it. Try this link.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040226/NEWS09/102260127&SearchID=73185339485281

Dusty